I Don't Know If Joe Can Do It

[Greenman]

This can be avoided by adding what I'll call the "Island Caucus" plus DC. The senate exists 6-7 points rightward of the country, an imbalance that can be corrected.

All of the senators were elected, how could there be an "imbalance"?

 

[fskimospy]

They could very well do that. Then when the republican's are in power they'll add six more. At some point in the not to distant future we'll have to move the supreme court to a stadium to fit the nine hundred justices.

Yes, the appropriate response for the Democrats would be to double the amount the Republicans add. If they keep doing it then the next step is to entirely disband and restaff the federal judiciary. There is no other option.

The point is you can’t have a situation where only one party respects the rules, and that’s what we have now. The only available course of action is to remind the Republicans why following the rules is beneficial to everyone. Agree?

As far as the judicial filibuster goes, that all started with the democrats trying to tweak the rules to their advantage, and as usual, the republican's took that change, weaponized it, and proceeded to beat them to death with it.

This is factually false. It all started with the Republicans attempting to eliminate it. They made a deal with the Democrats to keep it where the party out of the majority agreed not to filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances. Then as soon as they were out of power Republicans violated the agreement, so Democrats enforced the terms. You can go read about it yourself, what happened is easy to see.

It’s amazing how conservatives have convinced themselves that a situation where Republicans demanded a deal and then violated the exact deal they demanded is the Democrats’ fault. How do you guys do expertly reinvent history?

I don't like what they're doing. They fucked Obama out of an appointment, now they want to jamb a quickey through the system before Joe takes over.

Like it or not, those are the rules now. If you don’t like it convince your fellow Republicans that norms are important.

 

[fskimospy]

All of the senators were elected, how could there be an "imbalance"?

Because the median senate seat is 6-7 points to the right of the country.

Democrats should also add states to correct this.

 

[K1052]

Because the median senate seat is 6-7 points to the right of the country.

Democrats should also add states to correct this.

I think he doesn't know why that's bad even while *gestures at all of this* is going on.

 

[Greenman]

Because the median senate seat is 6-7 points to the right of the country.

Democrats should also add states to correct this.

Once again, changing the rules for an advantage.
I get it, everyone wants a stacked deck, but everything the democrats can do the republican's can do as well. It won't end well.

 

[fskimospy]

Once again, changing the rules for an advantage.
I get it, everyone wants a stacked deck, but everything the democrats can do the republican's can do as well. It won't end well.

How is it changing the rules? It’s literally following the rules to a T.

 

[fskimospy]

I think he doesn't know why that's bad even while *gestures at all of this* is going on.

What’s bizarre is he thinks following the constitution is changing the rules.

 

[K1052]

"You can't add states for political advantage!" says people who absolutely no idea of how and why states were added to the country.

 

[K1052]

What’s bizarre is he thinks following the constitution is changing the rules.

Yeah flushing the status quo of norms does't mean any of this is illegal or wrong. If we're dispensing with them then let's dispense.

 

[ivwshane]

At the end of the day, does it really matter? The republican's have nothing to gain by waiting. No democrat is going to change his vote because the republican's did the right thing. No democrat is suddenly going to develop respect for the GOP. So why risk giving up that appointment? Personally, I think it stinks, but from a political standpoint I don't see a down side. The far left can't hate the republican's any more than they already do, and I think the last moderate threw up his hands in despair years ago.

I agree however the one reason to not do it is to help those down ballot in tougher districts. People like Susan Collins who don’t do all they can to stop it will look even more like a party before country Republican and lose even more support. With enough losses the Dems can take the senate and basically negate everything McConnell has done.

 

[alexruiz]

All of the senators were elected, how could there be an "imbalance"?

Ok, I'll spell it in 1st grader terms.

A state like Wyoming has less than 600,00 people living there, and they have 2 senators.
California is almost 40 million people, still the same 2 senators.
Wyoming's neighbor state of Montana has comparable population, so between the 2 they are barely 1 million, yet they have 4 senators vs only 2 for the 40 mill in California.

Bisons don't vote, those sparsely populated states should have a senator at most.
Or consolidate them all in one giant deserted state.

 

[Grey_Beard]

All of the senators were elected, how could there be an "imbalance"?

Isn’t it nice that after the first round of NFL games today the winners walked up and put their thumb in the eye of the losing team. Great decorum. Glad there are procedures and respect.

 

[brycejones]

Once again, changing the rules for an advantage.
I get it, everyone wants a stacked deck, but everything the democrats can do the republican's can do as well. It won't end well.

You flunked American history didn’t you?

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree however the one reason to not do it is to help those down ballot in tougher districts. People like Susan Collins who don’t do all they can to stop it will look even more like a party before country Republican and lose even more support. With enough losses the Dems can take the senate and basically negate everything McConnell has done.

Trump will be pandering to the pro-life crowd with "Promises made, promises kept!" & Mitch will make it happen for him. It'll be a hit in Kentucky & might boost Trump's chances, if only as diversion from all the other criminally insane shit he's perpetrating.

 

[Greenman]

Ok, I'll spell it in 1st grader terms.

A state like Wyoming has less than 600,00 people living there, and they have 2 senators.
California is almost 40 million people, still the same 2 senators.
Wyoming's neighbor state of Montana has comparable population, so between the 2 they are barely 1 million, yet they have 4 senators vs only 2 for the 40 mill in California.

Bisons don't vote, those sparsely populated states should have a senator at most.
Or consolidate them all in one giant deserted state.

Thank you, now I understand, the problem is that you don't. Note that we live in the United States of America. The answer is right there in the name. It isn't the American Nation, it isn't just America. We reside in a republic of fifty states. Each state gets equal representation in the Senate, the people are represented in the House. Each state is equal, despite your desire that some states be more equal. So the the answer to the original question is that the Senate isn't out of balance, it's exactly as the citizens of the individual states wish it to be. This is the basis of our constitutional republic.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Thank you, now I understand, the problem is that you don't. Note that we live in the United States of America. The answer is right there in the name. It isn't the American Nation, it isn't just America. We reside in a republic of fifty states. Each state gets equal representation in the Senate, the people are represented in the House. Each state is equal, despite your desire that some states be more equal. So the the answer to the original question is that the Senate isn't out of balance, it's exactly as the citizens of the individual states wish it to be. This is the basis of our constitutional republic.

Except their not equal, some states count more than others. This has been explained before, you just choose not to agree. So yeah, add more territories as states. They get representation with taxation, and it's almost guaranteed to balanace back to a "majority rules" constitutional republic. You know this already, but you continue this song and dance.

 

[fskimospy]

"You can't add states for political advantage!" says people who absolutely no idea of how and why states were added to the country.

Guy who thinks adding states for political advantage is breaking the rules also apparently incurious as to why there are two Dakotas.

Thank you, now I understand, the problem is that you don't. Note that we live in the United States of America. The answer is right there in the name. It isn't the American Nation, it isn't just America. We reside in a republic of fifty states. Each state gets equal representation in the Senate, the people are represented in the House. Each state is equal, despite your desire that some states be more equal. So the the answer to the original question is that the Senate isn't out of balance, it's exactly as the citizens of the individual states wish it to be. This is the basis of our constitutional republic.

You literally argued earlier in this thread that the citizens of the individual states choosing to change that balance was wrong and unfair.

Maybe they want to change it because the balance isn’t what they want it to be so surely you support this 100%. After all, it’s what the citizens want that counts.

 

[fskimospy]

Except their not equal, some states count more than others. This has been explained before, you just choose not to agree. So yeah, add more territories as states. They get representation with taxation, and it's almost guaranteed to balanace back to a "majority rules" constitutional republic. You know this already, but you continue this song and dance.

His argument boils down to the idea that previous additions of states for the purposes of altering the distribution of political power were fine but now the number of states can never be changed again because that is somehow unfair.

 

[hal2kilo]

"You can't add states for political advantage!" says people who absolutely no idea of how and why states were added to the country.

There's a very good series on called "How the states were made." I would say political motivation and resource greed drove at least 75% of border formation.

 

[alexruiz]

Thank you, now I understand, the problem is that you don't. Note that we live in the United States of America. The answer is right there in the name. It isn't the American Nation, it isn't just America. We reside in a republic of fifty states. Each state gets equal representation in the Senate, the people are represented in the House. Each state is equal, despite your desire that some states be more equal. So the the answer to the original question is that the Senate isn't out of balance, it's exactly as the citizens of the individual states wish it to be. This is the basis of our constitutional republic.

You are the one that keeps not getting it.
The USA is not the only country divided in states/provinces, any federal republic works that way. The name doesn't matter.

back into the subject, states with very little relevance to the economic impact of the nation should have political relevance equal to their contribution, meaning, close to irrelevant. Those inbred hicks can keep herding the bisons.

 

[ivwshane]

You are the one that keeps not getting it.
The USA is not the only country divided in states/provinces, any federal republic works that way. The name doesn't matter.

back into the subject, states with very little relevance to the economic impact of the nation should have political relevance equal to their contribution, meaning, close to irrelevant. Those inbred hicks can keep herding the bisons.

Most definitely not. When you ignore those with little representation you aren't making America better you are making it worse. The goal is to form a more perfect nation and to provide for the general welfare of its people, all people.

The best thing we can do for this country is to expand the number of representatives in the house by at least double. The senate is where looking out for the "little" states should happen.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are the one that keeps not getting it.
The USA is not the only country divided in states/provinces, any federal republic works that way. The name doesn't matter.

back into the subject, states with very little relevance to the economic impact of the nation should have political relevance equal to their contribution, meaning, close to irrelevant. Those inbred hicks can keep herding the bisons.

Ugh. They're mostly decent people who've been relentlessly misled into believing things that aren't true, particularly about their urban counterparts. We are not their enemies.

 

[ondma]

Just because something was set up 200+ years ago does not mean it is fair. The constitution after all was written by men with motives of their own in a society that had the institution of slavery. It is grossly unfair that a state with so little population should get the same senate seats as a state with 5 or 10x the population. We could do something like 2 senators for every state and some sort of "bonus" additional seats based on population. Despite the reverence give to the constitution, both the senate seats and the electoral college were basically set up so the the government would be able to circumvent the popular vote.

 

[MrSquished]

Ugh. They're mostly decent people who've been relentlessly misled into believing things that aren't true, particularly about their urban counterparts. We are not their enemies.

Trump is revealing that a hell of a whole lot of them don't have much of that decent thing going on inside their hearts, souls and minds.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump is revealing that a hell of a whole lot of them don't have much of that decent thing going on inside their hearts, souls and minds.

They are beguiled. Trump is just the most obvious symptom yet. It's the fulfillment of long standing efforts by the GOP & Putin's boys to render Americans incapable of making rational decisions.